the unintentional handball

[SoFla Metro]

Originally posted by blech
I didn't see it, but a parent on one team (who is also a referee in the league) stated that on the second handball the player clinched his fist just before the ball hit it and that this unfairly changed the deflection and would have resulted in his making the call. Lemme guess - this parent's team didn't benefit from the no-call.

[whipple]

Originally posted by Stan
I will call handling on kids who flail their arms in the air as the ball approaches them, who could have avoided the ball but didn't seem to make an effort or who nudge the ball with their hand or arm when it hits them. Otherwise, it is "play-on".

Excellent, right up until you imply that you use the phrase, as many of us do, in error, "Play On!". Since the implementation of the advantage clause, referees should only say "Play On!" or its variants, when an actual foul has been observed and you are exercising your power to apply the advantage with the right to withdraw that and signal a restart if the advnatage does not materialiize.

We are instructed not to say "Play On" if there was no foul in the first place, as would be the case with an accidental handling. But then this raises the issue of, if we need to make some announcement that there is no offense, what do we say?

That had been problematic for me because I felt odd saying "No Foul", and then one of my assessors, suggested that when no foul occurs I say nothing. So this is exactly what I have done. I took him literally, and when previoiusly I might have said "Play" I now say "Nothing!". It seems to work.

BTW, here is a link to a new paper that came down from Chicago, yesterday regarding DOGSO, called the 4D's

http://www.massref.net/ins0902a.htm

I would be curious as to whether you think the guidelines are helpful and will better aid you in your decision making.

Sherman

[kevbrunton]

Originally posted by whipple
We are instructed not to say "Play On" if there was no foul in the first place, as would be the case with an accidental handling. But then this raises the issue of, if we need to make some announcement that there is no offense, what do we say?

That had been problematic for me because I felt odd saying "No Foul", and then one of my assessors, suggested that when no foul occurs I say nothing. So this is exactly what I have done. I took him literally, and when previoiusly I might have said "Play" I now say "Nothing!". It seems to work.
Sherman,

I use similar phraseology -- I'll frequently say "Nothing there" or if the inevitable hollering "handball" has already started, I'll state loud enough for most fans and coaches to hear "Ball played the hand/arm, keep playing". Once I've done that on the first 1 or 2 ball to hand contacts, I get MUCH less of the hollering about "handballs".

[Chicago1871]

Originally posted by Statesman

Players are allowed to use their hands and arms for protection so long as there is no deliberate force applied to the ball upon impact (directing its deflection).
The way I learned as a player and then a ref is if you keep your arms/hands tight to your body and an advantage is not gained from the ball playing them, then there is no whistle. If your arms are away from your body and the balls movement is inhibited enough for an advantage to be gained then the play should be stopped.
Of course there is always gray area, no getting around that. I agree with Wipple that a standard needs to be applied for all officials. I myself have had long discussions over exactly what constitutes a true handball.
The truth is there are many factors that influence a call, but the general ball/hand vs hand/ball needs to be called (or not) with more regularity.

[whipple]

Originally posted by Chicago1871

The way I learned as a player and then a ref is if you keep your arms/hands tight to your body and an advantage is not gained from the ball playing them, then there is no whistle. If your arms are away from your body and the balls movement is inhibited enough for an advantage to be gained then the play should be stopped.
Of course there is always gray area, no getting around that. I agree with Wipple that a standard needs to be applied for all officials. I myself have had long discussions over exactly what constitutes a true handball.
The truth is there are many factors that influence a call, but the general ball/hand vs hand/ball needs to be called (or not) with more regularity.

Ahhh, you have been twice cursed, as both a player and a referee with the myths of the game. Hand positiion has almost nothing to do with it, and advantage does not apply at all. But old habits, and, worse, the evils perpetrated on you young brain by misinformed referees of the past,a nd going to make it tough on you as you learn apply correct foul recognition involving the offense of deliberate handling.

It is for people who have been victims of this myth that Ed wrote the 8 step program cited in my earlier post. It is not a 12 step program like AA, but rather an 8 step prgram we call Handballers Anonymous or HA. Yes, even former players and referees can be handballers, but once we understand the laws, we each have the strength, within ourselves to change our ways and no longer be an embarrasement to our families and children.

Maybe we could have meetings and a buddy system. Every time we feel the urge to scream "handball ref?" we call our buddy on our cell, from the sideline and they can talk us through it until we calm down. Then we have the meetings... "

Sherman: "Hi my name is Sherman... and... I, i, i'm a ... I'm a .... handballer"

Crowd: "Hi Sherman"

Sherman: "I used to think I was just a supportive father, when my daughter first started playing, I thougt I was just like eveyone else, Yeah, sure I called out handball every time the ball touched a player, but I didn't think I had a problem. But then my daghter started pretding she was no relation, this got particualry bad after the referee refused to continue the game unless I went and sat in my car in the parking lot. They just did not understand, I SAW THE BALL HIT THE HAND! Why don't they call it?"

Crowd: (Murmur's of agreement, sympathy and understanding)

Sherman: "Now that I have joined HA , I know the error of my ways. It has been three weeks since I last shouted "Hey Ref! Handball".

Crowd: (Gasps amazement, Cheers Applause)

[Chicago1871]

Followed some of that...
Don't get me wrong, I am not one to blow the whistle everytime a ball glances an arm.
In my playing days I was a pretty solid marking back and quite skilled at using my hands for more than just the thrown in, and I know where to look and how to judge if the whistle needs to be blown. Just like a gut feeling. I saw the play and could instantly decide (based on what I saw) what was the appropriate action.
After my first certification I found myself questioning wanting to be a ref as I did not agree with many of the perspectives taught to me. I tried to push that aside, and did manage for a few years, but just last year I could not push myself to do something I did not believe in. Despite my reservations I was repeatedly recognized as a high quality official. Something I learned before I hung up the whistle and returned full-time to the boots was that feel is very important on both sides of the game. You have your rules and regulations to set the foundation, but after that vision and a true feel for and knowledge of the game will take your the rest of the way.
Cheers the refs out there who can do their job well, for you are few and far between and you do a tough job with little thanks.

[blech]

Originally posted by whipple


Here are the guidelines from our SDA and Natinal Instructor, Ed Rae:

How to judge?

Did the ball hit the hand? No whistle
Was it an instinctive, reflexive reaction? No call.
Protecting vital body parts? No call.
Was it just an aimless, bouncing ball? Nothing then.
Accident? No call.
No fault? No call.
Not on purpose? No call.

Did hand hit ball? Rare. But it might happen. If, in the
opinion of the referee, it was deliberate, then, and only then make the call.




These guidelines are helpful, and I think correctly illustrate that the handball should not be called every time the ball and hand come into contact. I don't know that they deal with the most difficult part of the call, however.

Specifically, how do you factor into the analysis the player who intentionally places his arm in a manner that it makes it more likely to be hit by the ball? For example, I assume that everyone would agree that if a player in the wall on a free kick closed his eyes and raised his arms straight over his head (rather than protecting his privates), a foul should be called if the ball struck these outstretched arms, right? I think I'd call a handball under these circumstances, and infer intent from his putting his arms like that, even though the ball hit the hand/arm and not the other way around. Would everyone else do the same?

Moving from this extreme example, where do you draw the line? I was always taught when playing defense in the box to keep my arms at my side, even though it is more natural and provides more balance to have them 3 to 6 inches off your body. Was this just to avoid a bad call by a ref, or something the rules suggest?

And, then, returning to my original situation, since it at arguable that the clinched fist would give a better bounce than an open hand, if you actually believe the player is going in with a clinched fist with the hope of getting such a bounce should the ball strike the hand, does this change the analysis?

[kevbrunton]

I have not problem with an arm being out away from the body in a natural position. If the ball strikes the hand or arm, it's still not handling.

A perfect illustration from last night's game... a shot is taken from about 30 yards out. A defender standing near the six yard line runs a couple steps forward and jumps to chest the ball. When she jumps and "extends" her chest, her arms both go straight out sideways -- 90 degrees to her body. How many times have you guys seen a girl do this? I've see it a lot.

Well, the ball had more swerve on it than she anticipated and she realized she wasn't going to be able to play it with her chest. Not only that, but now here she is up in the air and her arms are sticking straight out -- the ball is heading directly toward her right arm. She starts pulling her arm down and back, but she's too late, the ball strikes her arm.

The key thing to me here is that her arm was moving away from the ball -- she was making a CONCERTED effort NOT to play the ball with her arm. However, the ball struck her arm and given her position on the field, she stopped a goal.

I deemed it to NOT be handling.

The coach went ballistic stating "That's a handball -- it stopped a goal, it has to be a handball."

After the game, the coach approached me and asked how that could not have been a handball. I told him that the outcome has no bearing on whether it was a foul. Then I said, if you want to argue about whether she intentially handled the ball, then we can each have our own opinions, but since I was the one with the whistle, mine was the one that counted tonight, but that his assertion that because it stopped a goal, it must be a "handball" is completely wrong. He walked away stating it was a handball.

What do you guys think -- would you have whistled what I described for a handling foul?

[Motterman]

A little consistency is all most players ask for.

[IASocFan]

I would have called it intentional handling - PK. She had time to move toward the ball and time to extend her arms. Her intention appeared to be to play the ball (although not with her arms). It's like unintentionally tripping a player - the intent was to clear the ball, her execution caused the foul.

My take! If it would have been my arm, I would have expected a PK.

[kevbrunton]

Originally posted by IASocFan
I would have called it intentional handling - PK. She had time to move toward the ball and time to extend her arms. Her intention appeared to be to play the ball (although not with her arms). It's like unintentionally tripping a player - the intent was to clear the ball, her execution caused the foul.

My take! If it would have been my arm, I would have expected a PK.

Your statement "Her intention appeared to be to play the ball (although not with her arms)." brings up a question.

There's lots of situation where you intend to play the ball, but not with your arm and the ball takes a bounce, deflections, whatever and winds up making contact with your arm -- is that intentional handling in those cases?

I'd say not. The law doesn't say handling in the act of intentionally playing or attempting to play the ball -- it says intentional handling.

[scrub]

I'm a fan, not a referee, so this is sort of a theoretical question for the referees.

During a corner kick, the defending team stations 2 players on each side of the goal within the goal frame, facing the goal (back to the field), with their arms extended up in the air, blocking off a good portion of the goal. The players keep their eyes closed and cannot see the path of the ball.

Ball comes in and is headed into the corner and the arms block the ball from going into the goal.

I realize from the discussion that stopping the goal is not relevant.

Question: is this "handling"? (Or "hand ball" as I might say?)

[Alberto]

Originally posted by scrub
I'm a fan, not a referee, so this is sort of a theoretical question for the referees.

During a corner kick, the defending team stations 2 players on each side of the goal within the goal frame, facing the goal (back to the field), with their arms extended up in the air, blocking off a good portion of the goal. The players keep their eyes closed and cannot see the path of the ball.

Ball comes in and is headed into the corner and the arms block the ball from going into the goal.

I realize from the discussion that stopping the goal is not relevant.

Question: is this "handling"? (Or "hand ball" as I might say?)

Yes it is handling. It was purposely done to try and circumvent the spirit of the law. The arms are not in a natural position to play soccer. Furthermore, the act would deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity and would result in a send off.

[whipple]

Originally posted by kevbrunton

The key thing to me here is that her arm was moving away from the ball -- she was making a CONCERTED effort NOT to play the ball with her arm. However, the ball struck her arm and given her position on the field, she stopped a goal.

I deemed it to NOT be handling.

<snip>

What do you guys think -- would you have whistled what I described for a handling foul?

Kev,

Excellent no call. Good judgment. If more refereees called it the way you did, then we wouldn't have so many players and coaches failing to grasp this concept. Players, particularly defenders, would not have these awkward body positions and be able to play more effectively.

Sherman

[XYZ]

Originally posted by whipple
Excellent no call. Good judgment. If more refereees called it the way you did, then we wouldn't have so many players and coaches failing to grasp this concept.Exactly! Players and coaches and fans are confused because referees don't call it as it is written in the LOTG.

If it's not intentional, it's not handling. Period. End of story. Read the LOTG. That's what it says.

If you want to call it another way, change the LOTG.
Originally posted by scrub
During a corner kick, the defending team stations 2 players on each side of the goal within the goal frame, facing the goal (back to the field), with their arms extended up in the air, blocking off a good portion of the goal. The players keep their eyes closed and cannot see the path of the ball. I agree with Alberto on this. It's intentional, whether the players can see the path of the ball or not. That's handling and a red card send-off, no doubt about it.

I'm not a ref but I can read the LOTG:
Intentional = handling
Not intentional = not handling

It's quite simple.

Too bad so many refs apparently can't grasp that simple concept.

[passtheblizz]

Hmmm... I probably would have called that one a handball in Kevbrunton's case. Any handball that close in that prevents a very good (sure?) chance for a goal should be a PK. I wouldn't give a red card in that case, but surely a PK. Even though it was probably a mistake, there is no way to prove it was, and the use of bad technique, whether in tackling or trying to block a shot, is illegal if the result is detrimental to the other team. There is no handicapping in soccer. Next time she will keep her arms in.

Intentional does not simply mean that you are actively handling the ball.

In a case where there is no time to react, and as long as the players arm or hand is in a natural position, there is no foul. If a player comes in flailing their arms above their head while jumping and turning backwards in the air (I am sure you have seen this), and the ball hits their arms, even though they couldn't possibly see the ball, or "handle" it, it is obviously still a foul.

As a ref this is one of the most common gripes that you get from fans and coaches. I reffed a lot of indoor last winter and there were always five or six tough hand ball calls. As is always the case, consistency is the key. The old "if the ball hits the hand" saying doesn't apply in many cases. Intent should be interpreted to mean any situation in which a player increases their chances of blocking or playing the ball by placing their arms in a position whereby the probability that the ball will come into contact with their arm or hand is increased.

[blech]

Originally posted by XYZ

I'm not a ref but I can read the LOTG:
Intentional = handling
Not intentional = not handling

It's quite simple.

Too bad so many refs apparently can't grasp that simple concept.

I think this thread, as well any number of incidents we all can think of, demonstrate that it's not so simple. Determining intent is extremely difficult. There are the occasional easy cases where the defender (or forward in the case of Maradona) sticks out the hand and strikes the ball. There are the easy cases where from short range the ball gets blasted into an arm. But there is a lot in between that can be very gray. I also believe that one of the earlier posts correctly noted it may be appropriate to take into account the age and skill level of the game. What may be unintentional at u12 recreational very well may be intentional in the World Cup. Thus, the exact same play could be correctly called differently. Doesn't seem so simple to me.

In dealing with these latter examples, the conclusion I am drawing is that the player does not automatically become responsible for handling simply because the hand or arm may be in an awkward or unusual position, but that we must ask the question: Does the player have time to, and attempt to, move the hand/arm out of the way?

In the corner kick example, there is no attempt to get the arms out of the way, after placing them in a position intended to use them to block a goal. The easy call. In Kev's example, the player was attempting to get the arm out of the way, but in his opinion didn't have the time or ability to do so. Others might conclude when the ball is in the air this long, the player really should have gotten the arm out of the way. Also, it is more difficult to argue when the ball travels that far and the player is moving like this to say that the ball hit the arm (and not the other way around). In any event, it seems like a judgment call, that shouldn't be second guessed, especially if he's consistent in his application. But far from simple.

Originally posted by passtheblizz

Hmmm... I probably would have called that one a handball in Kevbrunton's case. Any handball that close in that prevents a very good (sure?) chance for a goal should be a PK.

I assume/hope the reference to the proximity to the goal simply refers to the determination of a PK as opposed to a direct kick. I suppose proximity to the goal could be a factor for inferring intent at the higher skill levels, but generally the call should be consistent inside and outside the box, right? Although this seems to typically work in the opposite direction with refs unwilling to call PKs on tackles, the opposite often happens if the ball is handled. If you wouldn't call it at midfield, why call it in the box?

[whipple]

Originally posted by passtheblizz
.... As is always the case, consistency is the key. The old "if the ball hits the hand" saying doesn't apply in many cases. Intent should be interpreted to mean any situation in which a player increases their chances of blocking or playing the ball by placing their arms in a position whereby the probability that the ball will come into contact with their arm or hand is increased.

There is clearly a lack of consistency across the referee community. This is a key focus of the USSF's instructional efforts and why such an effort was placed in getting the Advice to Referees out ot every refree in the cournty. The "old" "if the ball plays the hand vs. hand plays the ball " guidleline is the current advice at all levels.

The big problem we have in constency is that as players develop (along with their coaches/parents)they are first exposed to referees with the least competence, skill, judgement and experinece who simply call handling wrong, because they do not know better. The sad part is that rather than learn, they make up lame excuses like, the ball playing to advantage, or unatural arm positions.

This is why it is only when the players have been in the game for several years, and they become exposed to more experineced referees, that we start seeing the serious conflicts and confusion. As a premier league assignor in Massachusetts, I have to deal with this nearly every week. The better and more experineced the refree, the more complaints I get from some of the newer teams and organizations. Sometmes on Sunday Nights, but more often on Monday moringings I get angry calls from parents demanding to know why the ref at ther son's or daughter's game missed so many handballs, or allowed dangerous play.

They recite all the lame excuses they have heard from gutless referees who never learned to get the call right or found it easier to go with the popular misconception. Some are not satisfied with my explanation, but most come away with a better undersanding of the laws.

Sherman

[kevbrunton]

Originally posted by passtheblizz
Hmmm... I probably would have called that one a handball in Kevbrunton's case. Any handball that close in that prevents a very good (sure?) chance for a goal should be a PK. I wouldn't give a red card in that case, but surely a PK. Even though it was probably a mistake, there is no way to prove it was, and the use of bad technique, whether in tackling or trying to block a shot, is illegal if the result is detrimental to the other team. There is no handicapping in soccer. Next time she will keep her arms in.
I would strongly disagree with this statement -- bad technique on a slide tackle or a step over or any number of other moves will result in the foul being called because in ALL those cases, intent has nothing to do with it. Just like when a player is trying to cross over being the person with the ball and it is clearly obvious to everyone within 20 miles that they accidentally made contact and tripped the person with the ball (perhaps the person dribbling changed directions or speed slightly). Doesn't matter, it's still a foul.

Originally posted by passtheblizz
Intentional does not simply mean that you are actively handling the ball.

In a case where there is no time to react, and as long as the players arm or hand is in a natural position, there is no foul. If a player comes in flailing their arms above their head while jumping and turning backwards in the air (I am sure you have seen this), and the ball hits their arms, even though they couldn't possibly see the ball, or "handle" it, it is obviously still a foul.
I can agree with this to a point. But, if the arms are away from the body in a manner consistent with the way a lot of people jump and the ball strikes the arm, I'm still not going to call handling. I've seen DOZENS of girls jump to chest a ball just like this girl did.

[soccertim]

In terms of the hand playing the ball vs the ball playing the hand, don't you also have to consider avoidance? In other words, in the case of the US-Germany game, if the ref thought that he could have moved his arm out of the path of the ball, it's a foul. It's only a non-foul if you make a reasonable effort to move your arm out of the way, based upon the time you had to react. (This question is unrelated to whether the arm was in an unnatural position).